Trafigura PTE Ltd & Anor v Gupta & Ors [2026] EWHC 159 (Comm) (30 January 2026)

Trafigura PTE Ltd & Anor v Gupta & Ors [2026] EWHC 159 (Comm) (30 January 2026)

The court found that the Arrangement alleged by the Defendants did not exist and that Trafigura, through its relevant employees, did not have knowledge of or participate in any fraudulent scheme. The Defendants, led by Mr Gupta, perpetrated a fraud by supplying non-Nickel cargoes under contracts for LME Grade Nickel, supported by false shipping documents. Trafigura was entitled to rescind the Main Trades for fraudulent misrepresentation, recover sums paid, and obtain proprietary and damages relief. The defences based on alleged affirmation, inability to give counter-restitution, or knowledge within Trafigura failed on the facts and law.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 159 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Trafigura Pte Ltd; Claimant: Trafigura India Pvt Ltd; Defendant: Prateek Gupta; Defendant: UIL (Singapore) Pte Ltd; Defendant: UIL Malaysia Ltd; Defendant: TMT Metals AG; Defendant: TMT Metals (UK) Ltd; Defendant: Spring Metal Lts; Defendant: Mine Craft Limited; Defendant: New Alloys Trading Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim for Fraud, Misrepresentation, Rescission, and Damages / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimants
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Rescission of Contract, Constructive Trust, Damages for Deceit, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Duplicate Bills of Lading, Proprietary Relief
Commercial Law Fraud Contract Law Tort Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Rescission of Contract Constructive Trust Damages for Deceit +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trafigura Pte Ltd

Claimant

Trafigura India Pvt Ltd

Claimant

Prateek Gupta

Defendant

UIL (Singapore) Pte Ltd

Defendant

UIL Malaysia Ltd

Defendant

TMT Metals AG

Defendant

TMT Metals (UK) Ltd

Defendant

Spring Metal Lts

Defendant

Mine Craft Limited

Defendant

New Alloys Trading Pte Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim for Fraud, Misrepresentation, Rescission, and Damages / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Arrangement (fraudulent scheme) existed
  2. 2 Whether Trafigura could be bound by or attributed knowledge of the Arrangement
  3. 3 Whether there was fraudulent misrepresentation by the Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Arrangement alleged by the Defendants did not exist and that Trafigura, through its relevant employees, did not have knowledge of or participate in any fraudulent scheme. The Defendants, led by Mr Gupta, perpetrated a fraud by supplying non-Nickel cargoes under contracts for LME Grade Nickel, supported by false shipping documents. Trafigura was entitled to rescind the Main Trades for fraudulent misrepresentation, recover sums paid, and obtain proprietary and damages relief. The defences based on alleged affirmation, inability to give counter-restitution, or knowledge within Trafigura failed on the facts and law.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimants

Orders

  • Declaration that Trafigura validly rescinded the Main Trades
  • Orders for repayment of approximately US$500 million to Trafigura by the Defendants